Research Directions in the Study of Language Standardization

Research directions in the study of language standardization Ana Deumert and Wim Vandenbussche Monash University, Australia Vrije Universiteit Brussel/FWO-Vlaanderen, Belgium In the introduction we have commented on a number of themes or leitmotifs of standardization which can be observed across the individual case studies collected in this volume. The existence of persistent historical commonalities between standard languages has been a central motivation for the construction of cross-linguistic models and the general interest in a comparative, synthetic approach to the study of language standardization. In this concluding section we would like to outline some broad directions for further research in the ªeld of “comparative standardology”. Language standardization as creation and convergence In the popular imagination the history of standard languages is intricately con- nected to the activities of individuals and institutions. Indeed, the popular linguistic pantheon is ªlled with the names of the “standardizers” who set out to regulate and codify their native language, and standardization is — at least in part — seen as the direct consequence and result of the rational, goal-oriented actions carried out by these individual and collective social actors.1 Not only is it necessary (as already noted in the introduction) to carefully consider the various and sometimes con- ¶icting motivations of these actors (e.g. cultural aspirations, administrative uniªca- tion, economic advantage, political strategy, etc.), but their complex and manifold national and also trans-national interactions and collaborations deserve further attention. In this context it is worth mentioning the approach of De Groof (e.g. 2002b) which attempts — with regard to Belgian language history — a systematic cross-tabulation of the goals and motivations of a large number of social actors, as well as Watts’ (1999) more ethnographically inspired reconstruction of the “dis- course communities” of eighteenth century English grammarians. 456 Ana Deumert and Wim Vandenbussche The fact that French has functioned as a cultural model for the standardization of other languages has been noted repeatedly (cf. Haugen 1972; Joseph 1987; Jansen 2002). However, we still lack detailed cross-national studies of how the various aspects of the French model (e.g., the “one nation — one language” rhetoric, the idea of a language academy as a prescriptive institution which co-ordinates and shapes the codiªcation process) were “translated” into national standardization discourses, and to what extent their application was reshaped by the speciªcs of the sociolinguistic and historical context (cf. the seventeenth century debates about a language academy in Britain and ªnally the rejection of the idea, as discussed by Nevalainen, this volume). While the process of language standardization has been shaped to a large extent by the planned and organized activities of individuals, language societies and governments (their linguistic creativity or Schöpfung, cf. Scaglione 1984), a com- prehensive view of the history of standard language norms should also pay due attention to the complex and multifaceted processes of inter-dialect accommodation and convergence which supported the formation of well-deªned and — to use the terminology of Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985) — “ focused” sociolinguistic norms in heteroglossic speech communities. Joseph’s (1987) notion of “language standards” is useful in this respect (cf. also Jespersen’s 1925: 51Ÿ.). Language standards (or “protostandards” as Nevalainen, this volume, calls them in her discussion of the standardization of English) are relatively uniform linguistic varieties which function as a measure (or standard) against which an individual’s speech is evaluated. However, since language standards lack the overtly codiªed norms which are characteristic of standard languages, they tend to be linguistically more variable. They are characterized by what Smith (1996: 65–66, following Le Page and Tabouret-Keller) has called “focus”, i.e. the existence of a relatively uniform, collective norm towards which speakers orient themselves in their linguistic performance. Standard languages, on the other hand, are characterized by “ªxity”, i.e., by a set of highly prescriptive rules “from which any deviation is forbidden” (ibid.). Moreover, while standard languages are learned through ex- plicit and institutionalized teaching practices, the norms of language standards are acquired primarily through exposure to and imitation of model texts and model speakers (see the comments on medieval chancery standards in the introduction to this volume; see also Hansen, Jacobsen and Weyhe, this volume, on the spoken Faroese language standard).2 An important challenge for standardization research is to clarify the historical interactions and, in particular, language contact phenomena that occur between such pre-existing language standards and the emerging standard language. While the former emerged via dialect accommodation and linguistic focusing in local and professional networks (cf. Lenker 2000 for a case study), the latter is largely the Research directions in the study of language standardization 457 result of the purposeful linguistic interventions and elaborations of individual and collective actors. An understanding of standardization as a special type of language contact was also outlined by Haugen (1972: 247), who commented on the complex sociolinguistic interactions between the formal, written standard norm and the spoken language. According to Haugen, contact between speech and written language would eventually lead to the emergence of “new [spoken] norms … that are an amalgamation of speech and writing” (our emphasis). In other words, the spoken standard combines structural and lexical elements of two diŸerent linguistic systems and the precise origin of individual items remains diŸuse: “one is often hard put to say whether a given form has been handed down from its ancestor by word of mouth or via the printed page” (ibid.). A broad language contact perspective was more recently also adopted by Van Marle (1997) who argued — with reference to Dutch — that from the nineteenth century onwards the previously “unspoken” norms of the written standard formed the basis for the development of a spoken standard norm. This spoken standard, according to Van Marle, is best conceptualized as a type of “hybrid” language as it is simultaneously oriented towards the “ªxed” norms of the written standard and the more variable sociolinguistic conventions of the spoken language. From a broadly conceived language contact perspective two central processes of linguistic interaction can thus be distinguished in the history of standard languages: (a) Contact (and convergence) between pre-existing, focused (written and spoken) language standards and the emerging written standard language. (b) Contact (and convergence) between the written standard, the emerging spoken standard norm (as represented in the speech of “model speakers”) and the spoken dialects. The locus where this interaction takes place is the bi-dialectal and literate individual. Processes of destandardization, which are currently in progress in a number of standard language speech communities, constitute a special case of (b). Standard- dialect contact in the spoken domain therefore does not necessarily lead to the structural erosion of dialects under the pressures of the (prestigious) standard, but can also support the formation of regional spoken standard norms which com- mand local prestige and which are used in semi-formal situations. A research perspective which pays attention to these contact dynamics would help to overcome the somewhat teleological orientation of traditional standardization models. The careful investigation of the various overlapping selections from diŸerent linguistic systems at diŸerent historical times would contribute to a better understanding of the role of language standardization in a general theory of language change. 458 Ana Deumert and Wim Vandenbussche Alphabetization, mass literacy and the diŸusion of the standard language Selection and codiªcation are not the only aspects of the standardization process which have traditionally been interpreted as a result of the actions of relatively exclusive, powerful as well as socially and educationally privileged groups within a speech community. A focus on elite activities also informs, for example, Cooper’s (1989: 183–184) assessment of the conditions under which language planning decisions are successfully implemented and diŸused: Language planning may be initiated at any level of the social hierarchy, but it is unlikely to succeed unless it is embraced and promoted by elites and counterelites … Neither elites or counterelites are likely to embrace the language planning initiatives by others unless they perceive it to be in their own interest to do so … Elites in¶uence the evaluation and distribution of language varieties within a speech community … Whereas it is in the interest of established elites to promote acceptance of a standard, it is in the interest of counterelites to promote acceptance of a counter standard. While elite involvement and elite con¶icts are an important feature of many standard language histories, the traditional elite-oriented perspective has more recently been augmented by studies which carefully trace the implementation and diŸusion process across diŸerent social and economic groups

Load more